[David Asman, editorial features editor of The Wall Street Journal, engaged in an e-mail correspondence with Perry Lorenz. This began with an e-mail about a Congressional townhall meeting.]

Lorenz -- At Congressman Zoe Lofgren's (D-CA) townhall meeting, with 70 in attendance, on February 18, I gave this speech.

"I know this is a sensitive subject. But I believe it needs to be discussed.

"Every society in the world opposes the transformation of its racial composition. The Chinese, for example, consider the land of China to be theirs. Exclusively. And forever. They would not allow 10 million immigrants from India, or any place else. The idea of becoming a minority in their own country would never occur to them. The Indians feel the same way about their land. As do the Japanese and the Mexicans.

"What great harm would come to the world if the Americans had a piece of land that they could claim as their own, exclusively and forever.

"Unfortunately, Congress has a suicidal policy of massive immigration. By the middle of the next century, European Americans will be a minority, according to Census Bureau projections. A hundred years from now, China will still be Chinese; Mexico will still be Mexican. Down through the ranks, every country will maintain its nationality. But not America. America will not be recognizable. America will not even be European!

"But we don't have to go down this path. We can shut down immigration. Zero it out. We can preserve our European heritage."

Asman replies -- Haven't you ever heard of something called "the melting pot"? Your comparison of the U.S. with the insular quality of other nations is so transparent in revealing the bankruptcy of your argument that I'm amazed even you can't figure it out.

Lorenz -- In 2050 we'll have 200 million European Americans and 200 million Third Worlders in the "melting pot". The historic "melting" of various European ethnic groups into the new European American nation was a successful process, now completed. It does not follow that we are now obligated to jettison our European heritage. But the Third Worlders must be very grateful that you are offering up our country for colonization.

The alternative analogy of "salad bowl" means endless ethnic conflict and eventual partition. Either way, Americans lose.

Asman -- What in the hell do you think it is that distinguishes this great nation from underproductive nations like China or Mexico, or hopelessly rigid cultures like Japan? It certainly is NOT the "whiteness" of the U.S.

Lorenz -- If by "whiteness" you mean our European heritage (Anglo in particular) then YES! Our nation had achieved its greatness and distinction prior to 1965. Our Founding Fathers, greatly admired for their wisdom, were uniformly of British descent. We were once known as "The British Colonies." That is our heritage, to which we Americans have added our own contribution.

The Japanese are rigid? Within 20 years of Commodore Matthew Perry's introduction, they had built a railroad. Thirty years after that, they sank the Russian navy. Within a single generation they rebuilt their society from the rubble of World War II. There are Third World countries, that due to culture, high fertility and overpopulation, will not emerge out of poverty in five generations, if ever. The Japanese have lasted thousands of years, and no doubt, will last thousands more, if they can keep out the immigrants.

Asman -- It's the diversity of minds, backgrounds, talents, cultures, all focused on the unharnessed goal of reaching for and very often achieving their dreams. When a truly diverse group of people from all backgrounds with different ways of looking at things come together in a society that offers real opportunity to express their dreams, amazing things happen.

Lorenz -- Ethnic conflict happens. The Greek Civilization was the result of the activities of a single ethnic group. It was not culturally or racially diverse. The Roman Empire was homogenous when rising and mixed with other European groups on the way down. The British Empire was the work of the British. While the British are a mixture of groups, relative to world standards, they are (or were) homogeneous.

Not all countries are homogeneous. "Underproductive" Mexico is 9 percent white, 60 percent mestizo, and 30 percent Amerindian. That's more diverse than Britain. And far less productive.

India is a caldron of ethnic diversity on the verge of breaking up into still smaller pieces (they are now at 3 countries on the subcontinent and counting). Not very productive either.

' The examples of successful homogeneous societies and failed multicultural societies proves your theory of diversity to be wishful thinking.

Asman -- Problems that seem insoluble begin to open up when looked at from different perspectives. And an economy prospers when folks from all different backgrounds begin to offer their own expertise and fit precisely into doing what they do best. It's called economic efficiency.

Lorenz -- Homogeneous societies do have people with different perspectives and a variety of professional and intellectual backgrounds. This is what Georgie Ann Geyer says about the economic efficiency of multicultural societies in Americans No More

"When a multinational society has to accommodate so many different demands, which can include court procedures and public papers in many languages, in addition to actual changes in the laws to suit various cultural tastes, a country is inevitably bound not only to divide into conflictive camps but also to decline economically; there is simply no way that a country can with such expensive and disruptive demands, keep up with the much more easily functioning one-culture, one-language, and one-heritage countries" (pp.47,48).

Each ethnic group demands a bigger piece of the federal pie, and a bigger pie!

Asman -- Yes, the welfare mentality is destructive of this. And, yes, we must return to a point where government steps back and stops trying to direct our behavior - where and how we move in the socio-economy - with our own hard-earned money.

Lorenz -- Would you be willing to call for a five-year immigration moratorium until these deficiencies can be corrected?

Asman -- People must be free to pursue their dreams unfettered by government restraints, and they must also be free to suffer the pains of their weaknesses in order to build their strengths and discover where they best fit in the socio-economy. And government should not try to accommodate all cultures. It's an impossible task anyway. Immigrants must struggle as our fathers did to conform to the American culture and become proficient in English. On these points we agree.

Lorenz -- Earlier you said "cultural diversity" is an advantage. Now you say government should not accommodate all cultures, and immigrants must conform to American culture. It seems contradictory. What am I missing? For example, should the city of San Jose deny a parade permit for "Cinco de Mayo" and disappoint tens of thousands of Mexicans living here? Why allow people in, then demand that they become something they can not be Americans. It seems heavy handed. Why not just keep them out? The claim that Western Civilization needs Third World immigrants seems rather far-fetched, don't you think?

Asman -- But the diversity of minds and backgrounds is a crucial ingredient of the American dream.

Lorenz -- In 1960, Miami was 90 non-Hispanic white. Now it is 10 percent. Americans want to escape diversity and live with their own kind.

Asman -- It enriches both the quality and the quantity of our economic and social vitality.

Lorenz -- I believe Western Civilization is rich in economic and social vitality. There is no basis for the contrary view.

Asman -- Yes, there are bad apples in every bunch. But these are not unique to the current wave of immigrants. Think of the Tammany Hall Irish. Or the Sicilian Mafioso. Or German-American Bund organizers. Xenophobes can always point to these bad apples to prove that immigration is bad or to use it as a convenient excuse for their country's failings.

Lorenz -- "Xenophobes?" How is it that the Left and the multiculturalists have such a rich vocabulary of epithets?

Asman -- But the need for new minds and new hearts from all parts of the globe far outweighs the small-minded desire for ethnic purity. Only stagnation - cultural and economic stagnation - results from attempts to "purify" a country's ethnicity.

Lorenz -- Humans evolved in homogeneous societies. That is our character. It's an arrangement that minimizes ethnic conflicts and eliminates numerous problems. Nations are sustained, in good times and bad, by a common ethnic descent. It binds a nation together. A nation, such as Japan, is a community of cousins. They have all intermarried among each other over the centuries and are now related to each other genetically and culturally. You could say they are one big family. To denigrate their relationship as one of "ethnic purity" is to reveal your lack of understanding of what a blood relationship is and what binds people together. People have a strong affinity for their families, and their relatives, and others in their ethnic, national and racial groups. It's in our genes. No amount of politically correct brain washing is going to eliminate it.

Asman -- Any researcher will tell you that real innovation, bringing research to a new plateau, comes from having people with many different backgrounds focused on the same project. Yes, they must have a common, shared level of proficiency in basic research. One researcher, or even one group of researchers with exactly the same background, simply cannot innovate.

Lorenz -- If by "different backgrounds" you mean culturally and racially diverse, then it's nonsense! Leonardo da Vinci was innovative. So were Newton, Bell, Edison and Ford. What they had in common was not "different backgrounds" or cultural diversity or racial diversity or Third World immigration. What they had in common was Western Civilization. It's our European culture that fosters innovation. Silicon Valley owes it founding and its success to our European culture. This attempt at crediting our success to diversity rather than our European heritage is very trendy. That is why prior to 1965 there were no theories to explain our success. Then the Third Worlders arrived along with a theory for our success.

Asman -- That is why the Japanese, with all of their treasured ethnic purity, do very little innovative work and usually copy our innovations. They are good slave-like workers. But there is not the same kind of dynamic innovation in their system as there is in ours. Yes, it's "cleaner" than ours. But what kind of system would you really rather work within?

Lorenz -- Like almost all people, I prefer my own culture. Therefore I object to its transformation by immigration. You may know of Jim Rogers, Wall Street legend and founder of Quantum Fund, teacher of finance at Columbia University, and a regular on CNBC Cable Network. You call it "diversity," he calls it "multiculturalism." Same thing. From his book Investment Biker (pp.303-4)

"Multiculturalism - the philosophical, political, and pedagogical movement - will lead to the destruction of the United States as its borders are drawn today... We think we are exempt from universal laws, but we are not. People who think they are exempt from universal laws have a moral disease called hubris, frequently fatal. I am not trying to be clever or outrageous; this is simply history, the way the world has been ever since we've been recording it. Separatism is a fact of history at all times of economic distress."

Asman -- Thanks for your reply. I know Jimmy Rogers. He and I agree that this multiculturalism stuff is a bunch of crap.

Lorenz -- Massive immigration is the fertilizer that feeds multiculturalism. Without it, multiculturalism would be a little fad among the leftists on a handful of campuses. Could there be a massive bilingual federal program if immigration were shut off in 1965? There would be no Spanish-speaking students to take advantage of it. Massive immigration without multiculturalism is not an option. Would you support a moratorium on immigration until multiculturalism can be substantially eradicated?

Asman -- But he [Jimmy Rogers] certainly would NOT agree that Silicon Valley is just a product of our European culture.

Lorenz -- The immigration law changed in 1965. Prior to 1970 there was not a significant number of immigrants in Silicon Valley. By 1970, Hewlett-Packard, Varian Associates, IBM, Fairchild and many other electronics firms were well established here. The nearby universities played an important role and they of course are very old. Thus Silicon Valley was founded and well established as a result of our European culture. Now the immigrants have flooded in to take advantage of a wonderful culture produced by Western Civilization. But there is no evidence to indicate that immigration was essential to continue what Americans had done so well to begin with.

Asman -- It's a product of the ingenuity of human beings from all over. In fact, quite a few immigrants NOT from Europe were involved in the creation of that... just ask T. J. Rogers, head of CYPRUS in Silicon Valley, and one of the biggest supporters of unfettered immigration I know.

Lorenz -- I have responded at length to T. J. Rodgers' arguments in a separate e-mail. It just seems so contrived and phony to me, that Western Civilization, which has gone from Kepler, to the steam engine, to the telegraph, to airplanes, and placing a man on the moon, suddenly requires Third World immigrants to continue its success. That is the ultimate in multi-racial and multicultural myths. Our "need" for Third Worlders occurs just when multiculturalism is in full swing. Immigration continues its search for justification. Have you noticed that you and the far-Left are in full agreement on open borders? The Left understands the destructive nature of immigration. The business Right hasn't figured it out yet.

Asman -- That's the point. The people on the line [in Silicon Valley] disagree with you.

Lorenz -- I've been a design engineer (with 7 patents) in Silicon Valley for 20 years. But being a CEO (or an engineer for that matter) does not make a person an expert on the consequences of displacing the Americans with foreigners on American soil. At one time businessmen brought slaves to this country because it was good for the bottom line. We've had problems because of that. Once again they are instituting a massive migration whose problems for society will echo down the corridors of time. CEOs are no more qualified to offer advice on migration than welfare recipients are on welfare policy.

Asman -- And have you paid any attention to what's happened recently in LA? That city was brought back to life by immigration from non-European groups ... and these are folks who have much stronger family traditions than the spoiled, white teenage sons and daughters of European lineage.

Lorenz -- Is this "dissolve the people and elect a new people?" Or "Third Worlders are more American than the Americans?" A father that would displace his own spoiled teenagers with other children does not deserve the title of "father," but he would certainly deserve the adjective of irresponsible. Our families must indeed be strengthened. But as you note, bringing in immigrants does not strengthen our (American) families.

They, who break up their families to come here, do not have strong family values. They have strong economic values. These are the people involved in chain migration. What about female genital mutilation, arranged marriages and other bizarre cultural practices? Doesn't sound like strong family values to me. And it certainly isn't European.

Asman -- I do appreciate the debate, and I especially appreciate you taking the time you have to explore these ideas. -//-